Ferrari SF-26

[AR3-GP]

Isn't there a stipulation in the rules that all SLM mechanisms must fail closed?

Yes and you can do that with springs inside the mechanism (think like air brakes on a truck need air pressure to unstick the brakes). So that would try and push the wing closed when there's no actuator power, but if the mechanism itself binds because of flexing or other issue that only shows up on the track, then it doesn't really matter, it's not going to work.

With every design, there is what you want it to do, what it does in the factory when you show it to the FIA, and then what it does on the track...

As explained in the video linked a few posts before, the issue may be on the fluid dynamic side and not on the mechanical closing of the wing. In substance, there may be situations in which the flow does not reattach and at that point there is nothing you can do.

They might also have reattachment issues that could show up on another day, but so far there is a much simpler explanation which has been provided.

Verstappen told Sky Sports F1 that the cause of his Silverstone spin was identical to the issue that put him in the barriers in qualifying for the Austrian Grand Prix a week earlier.

“The same as Austria, the rear wing just doesn’t fully close,” he said. “I saw the analysis. It looks like it closes, but it doesn’t. It closes but it’s just a little bit open and you lose a lot of rear downforce. And that’s why the car just spins off the track.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/verst ... 40457.html

[venkyhere]

So much 'stuff' flying around about the 'Redbull mechanism' both in forums and media.
What made this wing 'fine' before Austria ? The car was much more unbalanced, was generating lesser overall downforce, and had all kinds of under/over steer (shifting balance) in corners, with drivers complaining all the time. Why didn't this 'wing problem' show up then ? The drivers were as likely to 'press the button late' pre-Austria. Plus, both team and driver have openly admitted that the 'wing didn't close properly' & didn't say 'wing closed late'. I don't have any reason to believe that the problem is anything other than the 'mechanism' of the actuator+hinges not working optimally in the face of 'load'. But then, why were they working well before Austria ?
There is only one answer - weight saving. They must have done something to the wing assembly or the wing itself or the SLM mechanism, to save weight, and miscalculated the mechanical robustness against instantaneous peak loads (changing wind + closing 'against' high pressure air), that must have exposed a flaw with the actuator+hinge mechanism that causes it to 'stop closing' before reaching final position. The team probably has a simple solution already (corner case bug exposed only in the 'field') and might fix this next race itself.
Until then, we can read/watch tons of content about how the problem is aerodynamic, rather than mechanical.

[matteosc]

Yes and you can do that with springs inside the mechanism (think like air brakes on a truck need air pressure to unstick the brakes). So that would try and push the wing closed when there's no actuator power, but if the mechanism itself binds because of flexing or other issue that only shows up on the track, then it doesn't really matter, it's not going to work.

With every design, there is what you want it to do, what it does in the factory when you show it to the FIA, and then what it does on the track...

As explained in the video linked a few posts before, the issue may be on the fluid dynamic side and not on the mechanical closing of the wing. In substance, there may be situations in which the flow does not reattach and at that point there is nothing you can do.

They might also have reattachment issues that could show up on another day, but so far there is a much simpler explanation which has been provided.

Verstappen told Sky Sports F1 that the cause of his Silverstone spin was identical to the issue that put him in the barriers in qualifying for the Austrian Grand Prix a week earlier.

“The same as Austria, the rear wing just doesn’t fully close,” he said. “I saw the analysis. It looks like it closes, but it doesn’t. It closes but it’s just a little bit open and you lose a lot of rear downforce. And that’s why the car just spins off the track.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/verst ... 40457.html

I wonder if it didn't close properly because it did not have the expected level of downforce to close the last little bit. In general I think it is interesting that some people view the RedBull solution as more stable under braking, some people think the complete opposite. Regardless of mechanical failures.

[venkyhere]

As explained in the video linked a few posts before, the issue may be on the fluid dynamic side and not on the mechanical closing of the wing. In substance, there may be situations in which the flow does not reattach and at that point there is nothing you can do.

They might also have reattachment issues that could show up on another day, but so far there is a much simpler explanation which has been provided.

Verstappen told Sky Sports F1 that the cause of his Silverstone spin was identical to the issue that put him in the barriers in qualifying for the Austrian Grand Prix a week earlier.

“The same as Austria, the rear wing just doesn’t fully close,” he said. “I saw the analysis. It looks like it closes, but it doesn’t. It closes but it’s just a little bit open and you lose a lot of rear downforce. And that’s why the car just spins off the track.”

https://sports.yahoo.com/articles/verst ... 40457.html

I wonder if it didn't close properly because it did not have the expected level of downforce to close the last little bit. In general I think it is interesting that some people view the RedBull solution as more stable under braking, some people think the complete opposite. Regardless of mechanical failures.

It's the other way around - the closing mechanism has to work against the onsetting downforce while closing. And there has to be some kind of mechanical lock inherent to the mechanism (which gets disengaged just before the wing begins opening for SLM) that prevents the downforce (the force is never downward, it's pointed 'down&back' if it were a vector) from opening the wing when SLM is inactive, since the hinge mechanism is near the top. This 'downforce is not supposed to open the wing by accident' condition applied for the earlier DRS mechanism as well, just to put it in perspective.

In case of the SF26, the 'final moments of closing' is aided by the onsetting downforce (exactly opposite to the Redbull).

[Farnborough]

There's some views given about potentially banning this, which I'm ambivalent about. It's hardly groundbreaking in its concept, not of a design "earthquake" type cleverness, and with others potentially bringing their own version will simply equalise any realised drag reduction. That to, ultimately, make it unnecessary in research spend, especially under cost cap regime.

Notable that Ferrari also suffered unintended rear downforce release during live public testing (albeit for different reason) with LH lobbing it in China, forcing further R&D expenditure in bringing more reliable application.

Raw fact though, it still hasn't brought parity (in whole race performance) with conventional stance on Mercedes chassis. That suggests cap spend would be better applied somewhere else.

Similar in failure to early BBW rear brake blend systems in failure mode, that to swap ends at most potent and inopportune moments, Sauber being a particularly high performing team in that aspect the risk of injury just the same though. That system of blending rear brake convention with regeneration potential a more worthwhile "advance" in technical achievement though, and supports effort put into development. This "flip" wing does nothing though, in that direction for either F1 or technology in general. Especially if the whole field adopt and that transient period advantage dissappear.

The FIA seemed to make statement in promoting "adventurous" design here, which gave birth to it. But it's hardly an significant advance, more just trying to make up for the Dog's breakfast of PU regulation that's been forced onto current F1 competitors for no gain.

Note that the front wings, all of them, apparently have need to "pull" the flap up into normal mode against aero load (are any of them anything to the opposite?)

If the FIA wanted development in competent application here, they should have allowed for it in space to place mechanisms in reasonable position to facilitate safe development, rather than leave teams to "hide" this in tge previous aero regulation derived equipment allowance.

This whole thing looks pathetic in its outlook for such a highly scrutinesd race series.

Note to mod, please move if inappropriate in this car thread. I've responded to general discussion, but may not fully fit remit of just SF26 hardware strictly.

[Just_a_fan]

Banning it because Red Bull can't make it work reliably would be par for the course for the FIA.

[Farnborough]

Banning it because Red Bull can't make it work reliably would be par for the course for the FIA.

I don't feel it defines the SF26, in as much as we really can't see its performance as that's not isolated.

This car design has many attributes when viewed against the field, possibly the best in latent design.

The parts we can't see, ultimate setup vs sim, the fine nuance of energy deployment etc, appear to be a major area of performance advance in this era. I don't like this to watch (primarily the absolute and carefully measured control needed to tease out lap time) but it has brought Ferrari with this chassis more into cutting edge contention at the moment.

[LM10]

There's some views given about potentially banning this, which I'm ambivalent about. It's hardly groundbreaking in its concept, not of a design "earthquake" type cleverness, and with others potentially bringing their own version will simply equalise any realised drag reduction. That to, ultimately, make it unnecessary in research spend, especially under cost cap regime.

It’s been the most eye-catching innovation brought this season. Never seen before. If that’s not groundbreaking in times of strict rules, I don’t know what is.

Notable that Ferrari also suffered unintended rear downforce release during live public testing (albeit for different reason) with LH lobbing it in China, forcing further R&D expenditure in bringing more reliable application.

You said it yourself… “testing”. No one cares about the failures which initially happened. That’s the reason Ferrari first refined the concept before racing it. Finding solutions to issues… that’s what engineering is about.

Raw fact though, it still hasn't brought parity (in whole race performance) with conventional stance on Mercedes chassis. That suggests cap spend would be better applied somewhere else.

A rear wing is just one of many elements that influence race pace. You can’t be seriously thinking that it does not do its job because it “hasn’t brought parity”. Ferrari would not have spent resources on it if it didn’t matter.
In this year’s F1 the single most important factor is deployment. Nothing influences raw pace, race pace and, as part of that, tyre deg as much as deployment. And Mercedes is miles ahead of anyone. Yet, Ferrari has been doing a superb job staying close to or sometimes even being faster than Mercedes.

[aberracus]

There's some views given about potentially banning this, which I'm ambivalent about. It's hardly groundbreaking in its concept, not of a design "earthquake" type cleverness, and with others potentially bringing their own version will simply equalise any realised drag reduction. That to, ultimately, make it unnecessary in research spend, especially under cost cap regime.

Notable that Ferrari also suffered unintended rear downforce release during live public testing (albeit for different reason) with LH lobbing it in China, forcing further R&D expenditure in bringing more reliable application.

Raw fact though, it still hasn't brought parity (in whole race performance) with conventional stance on Mercedes chassis. That suggests cap spend would be better applied somewhere else.

Similar in failure to early BBW rear brake blend systems in failure mode, that to swap ends at most potent and inopportune moments, Sauber being a particularly high performing team in that aspect the risk of injury just the same though. That system of blending rear brake convention with regeneration potential a more worthwhile "advance" in technical achievement though, and supports effort put into development. This "flip" wing does nothing though, in that direction for either F1 or technology in general. Especially if the whole field adopt and that transient period advantage dissappear.

The FIA seemed to make statement in promoting "adventurous" design here, which gave birth to it. But it's hardly an significant advance, more just trying to make up for the Dog's breakfast of PU regulation that's been forced onto current F1 competitors for no gain.

Note that the front wings, all of them, apparently have need to "pull" the flap up into normal mode against aero load (are any of them anything to the opposite?)

If the FIA wanted development in competent application here, they should have allowed for it in space to place mechanisms in reasonable position to facilitate safe development, rather than leave teams to "hide" this in tge previous aero regulation derived equipment allowance.

This whole thing looks pathetic in its outlook for such a highly scrutinesd race series.

Note to mod, please move if inappropriate in this car thread. I've responded to general discussion, but may not fully fit remit of just SF26 hardware strictly.

This look like Mercedes wet dream, all the money used developing a complicated rear wing going to the trash because other team hasn't make him work well?.
We know the FIA is in Toto's pocket, that needs to stop now.

[matteosc]

Raw fact though, it still hasn't brought parity (in whole race performance) with conventional stance on Mercedes chassis. That suggests cap spend would be better applied somewhere else.

A rear wing is just one of many elements that influence race pace. You can’t be seriously thinking that it does not do its job because it “hasn’t brought parity”. Ferrari would not have spent resources on it if it didn’t matter.
In this year’s F1 the single most important factor is deployment. Nothing influences raw pace, race pace and, as part of that, tyre deg as much as deployment. And Mercedes is miles ahead of anyone. Yet, Ferrari has been doing a superb job staying close to or sometimes even being faster than Mercedes.

I would add that it is possible that the good performance of Silverstone is due (in part) to how efficient this rear wing is when closed.